Re: [ifwp] Re: membership proposal

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

Mr. Dixon wrote:

>> There are two temporary groups in the current scheme.  One represents
>> brand name holders.  At this particular point in the evolution of the
>> Internet, this group feels particularly aggrieved.  Their input into
>> the board might be helpful in developing an understanding of the problem
>> and might stave off lawsuits.
>

Prof. Mueller responded:

>On an interim board, to overcome short-term political objections, yes. As
a permanent
>or even "temporary" category that is built into the structure of the
organization,
>No.


So TM owners should have input now only "to overcome short-term political
objections." The importance of brand protection (and the on-going violation
of trademark rights) doesn't enter into your calculations.  Please
re-consider whether people familiar with the various trademark systems of
the world will have anything useful to add as the need for a world-wide
system of domain-name protection becomes increasingly apparent.

Mueller then wrote:
>If you go to countries such as Indonesia
>or Hong Kong or India you realize very quickly just how small and
unrepresentative
>the TLD registries are. To say that they "represent" the Internet and
should be given
>a guaranteed channel into the power center of the New corp is to vest in
them a form
>of power and leegitimacy they never deserve nor know how to handle.

What calculus did you use to decide whether someone else "deserves" power
and legitimacy?  Should we then apply that calculus to every member of
IFWP?  To every writer on this list?  How much power and legitimacy do you
deserve, under that calculus?